Joel White, «Anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul: An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation», Vol. 90 (2009) 305-333
This article argues that, though it cannot be doubted that there is a subversive quality to Paul’s letters, attempts to identify subversive subtexts have failed due to their preoccupation with what is deemed inherently subversive vocabulary. A better approach to grounding Paul’s anti-imperial theology is to recognize that he affirmed the subversive late Second temple Jewish-apocalyptic, and particularly Danielic, narrative that viewed Rome as final earthly kingdom that will be destroyed by the coming of God’s kingdom.
314 Joel White
plausible case can be made for a traditionsgeschichtliche link either to
the OT prophetic tradition (40) or even to Jesus himself (41).
c) Phil 3,20
A third text that plays an important role in post-colonial readings of
Paul is Phil 3,20: “For our place of citizenship (polivteuma) is in
heaven, and it is from there that we eagerly await our Savior, the Lord
Jesus Christâ€. The term politeuma can refer to the citizenry, the state of
v
being a citizen, or the place of citizenship, with the latter being most
likely. Spicq notes that it was most commonly used to denote “an
organization of citizens from the same place, with the same rights
(isonomoi) in the midst of a foreign state†(42). That meaning certainly
makes sense here, and it was a notion that members in the church of
Philippi, an important Roman colony, would have understood. The fact
that this political term is linked closely with kuvrio" and swthr has led
v
N.T. Wright to interpret the passage as a call to Christians to render
fealty to their true Lord and Savior, rather than Caesar (43). This does, in
fact, seem to be the clearest example of a remark in Paul that is
undeniably set against an imperial background. Still, even here caution
should be exercised since it is not clear to what extent the statement
would have been construed as subversive, even by Roman officials (44).
First, much of the force of Wright’s argument, in particular, is gained
by his contention that the anti-imperial tone in Phil 3,20 is also to be
assumed in the Christ hymn of Phil 2,6-11 (45). Certainly, if that hymn is
meant to be a blatant challenge to the present, mundane authority of the
emperor, it must be construed as subversive, but there is nothing in the
immediate context of Phil 2,6-11 that necessitates such a reading.
Second, one needs to be aware of the danger of importing modern
conceptions of citizenship into our understanding of Paul’s metaphor.
We generally think of citizenship as claim of loyalty by a state that tend
to exclude other such claims. In the ancient world, citizenships were
honors (with attendant privileges) to be amassed. Paul himself was,
(40) Cf. HOLTZ, Thessalonicher, 215; PLEVNIK, Paul, 103-104.
(41) Cf. D. WENHAM, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity
(Grand Rapids, MI 1995) 314-316.
(42) C. SPICQ, TLNT IV, 130.
(43) Cf. WRIGHT, “Paul’s Gospelâ€, 160-183.
(44) Cf. P. OAKES, Philippians. From People to Letter (SNTSMS 110;
Cambridge 2001) 147: “Paul does not seem to be wishing, as such for Rome’s
overthrow. He is not writing anti-Roman polemicâ€.
(45) Cf. WRIGHT, “Paul’s Gospelâ€, 72.